Will the "Golden At-Bat" Be the Thing That Finally Destroys Baseball?

[Matthew Lenz]

Recently, Major League Baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred joined Puck Sports Correspondent John Ourand to discuss a variety of topics related to the future of the game. One of those discussions led to Manfred dropping a nugget from the Owner’s Meetings about implementing a Golden At-Bat rule. What are the details surrounding this possible rule change, and would it help reinvigorate the game of baseball?

Image courtesy of © Brad Penner-Imagn Images

For many years now, many have considered baseball to be a game in need of a makeover in order to keep up with how people (especially young people) consume sports and entertainment. To the chagrin of boomers everywhere, the (umm) "beauty"  of a three-plus-hour game just doesn’t hold the attention of the younger generations, who crave fast-paced, instantaneous entertainment. In recent years, MLB has introduced a variety of rules aimed at making the game quicker and more exciting, including:

• Introducing a pitch clock,
• Requiring relievers to either finish an inning or face at least three hitters
• Limiting the number of pitchers a team can carry,
• Putting a guy on 2nd base to start extra innings. 
• Restricting mound visits and pick-off attempts, and
• Embiggening the bases

Each of these has led to positive returns in both the pace of play and the number of fans tuning into and attending baseball games. While we expect more changes, such as an electronic strike zone, Manfred’s newest idea of a “Golden At-Bat” is almost too gimmicky to be taken seriously.

In short, the idea is that a team could send their best hitter to the plate regardless of where their spot was in the batting order once a game. So instead of (say) Christian Vázquez being forced to hit in a crucial at-bat, the Twins could use their “Golden At-Bat” and have Royce Lewis get the chance instead. In the words of Manfred, the powers that be are “in the conversation-only stage right now”, so we don’t have much additional insight into the idea being floated around. While it may be nothing more than just a thought bubble on a comic strip, though, the fact that Manfred was comfortable enough sharing the idea in such a public way makes me think that it could grow some legs and one day be a real thing. While I’m open to (and even a proponent of) change, this idea is too far from the figurative “spirit” of the game.

In no other sport is a team limited in whom they can rely on in a clutch moment like they are in baseball. Need a two-minute drive to win a football game? Okay, put your best offense out there and substitute between plays as needed. Need to lock down the best shooter in the NBA? Okay, sub in your best perimeter defender. Heck, even in hockey, teams get to choose who and in what order their skaters shoot in a shootout. But baseball is different. In baseball, if your sub-.600 OPS hitter is at the plate with the game on the line, you might be able to pinch-hit—but who’s to say that hitter is much better? And unlike in the sports mentioned above, the pinch-hitter is rarely going to be the best option; they’re usually just the better of two bad alternatives. That’s one of the things that makes baseball unique.

Who is Aaron Boone, if not for his unexpected heroics in the 2003 American League Championship Series? Bucky Dent, Bill Mazeroski, and Gene Larkin are not famous as consistently excellent sluggers. On the contrary, their fan bases will remember them forever as players who came through in huge moments, despite being modest hitters. If we conform to other leagues in this way, what are we going to do next, let hitters toss the ball to themselves instead of being the only sport where the defense controls the pace of the ball?

Aside from my beef of fundamentally changing the game of baseball, the consequences of this rule would have a negative impact on players. Assuming that the Golden At-Bat is largely used in high-leverage situations, this puts more strain on the bullpen, especially the best relievers, which could have negative repercussions both on their performance and on their physical wellbeing. On the other side of the ball, how do you manage the message you’re sending to the player who was "supposed" to bat? How do you manage the message you’re sending to the player(s) who weren’t selected for the “Golden At-Bat”? How do those decisions impact the clubhouse? Finally, how does a younger player establish themselves as worthy of the “Golden At-Bat,” if they’ve been limited in their high-leverage opportunities for the first part of their career? Some of these are relatively fun and interesting questions, and would deepen the strategic latticework of the game, but others of them expose the basic inconsistency between this proposed rule and the historical nature of baseball.

Of course, like almost anything with sports, these are all questions that only get asked if the Golden At-Bat doesn’t work. If Joe Mauer delivers the winning hit in Game 163 in 2009, rather than Alexi Casilla, does the latter balk or the decision get second-guessed? Likely not. But baseball is a game of failure, The Golden At-Bat is going to fail more often than not, and that’s going to create more problems than answers. As the powers that be have recently discovered, there are simpler ways to improve the game that don’t change the very fabric of the game. While I can appreciate the creativity and openness to try new things, let’s hope this idea is saved for the Savannah Bananas.

---

What are your thoughts on the Golden At-Bat? Do you have any outlandish rule change ideas? Join the conversation in the comments!

View full article

[CRF]

No, no...NOOOOO!!!

[mikelink45]

Why?  This is not like the speed up the game elements implemented so far.  Give me the electronic scoreboard, but don't put in a gimmick like this.  A man on second in extras is bad enough.

[Coach Wheels]

When you have a commissioner more interested finding gimmicks to "enhance" the game than thinking about bringing the elements of the game that made it great; pitching, stealing bases, hitting the ball the other way, etc., the game is doomed. 

For small market teams, the game is about dead now. Gimmicks as dumb as this aren't helping.

[arby58]

I assume this could only be used once a game, so some of the concerns seem a bit hyperbolic. Tradition dies hard - the DH altered the fundamental fabric of the game as much or more than this, and baseball life went on. I find this less artificial than the runner on second base in extra innings - and it may well lead to less extra innings games. Bottom of the ninth, tie game situations, with the bottom of the order coming up could get potentially a lot more interesting.

[Doug Y]

I would stop watching!

[umterp23]

So a scenario of what ifs was played out I think in a The Athletic article that said what if you are Bobby Witt Jr gets the golden bat to start the 9th inning from a poor 9th in the lineup hitter.  He either strikes out or gets a base hit.  Now lets say he gets a hit, a double.  They pitch run for him and guess what he is back at the plate as the leadoff hitter.  Gets 2 for the price of 1 plate appearances.  Or he strikeouts but still stays at the plate to take his normal turn.

Next thing you will get is team A has hit too many homers and the next one is an automatic out when they blast one.  Beer softball leagues here we come under this clowns leadership.

 

 

[Reptevia]

His stupidest idea yet. 

[olerud]

That's one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard of!!!! Jeeezzzz these people won't stop until they completely ruin the game.  Some would say they already have. It's become like a frickin video game.  It's less enjoyable every year!

[mhanson93]

NO!!!!!!!  I'm done with MLB if this passes!!

[MMMordabito]

That's the perfect picture of an idiot who implements idiot rules.

Here's another one of the ole mouth-breather:

[rv78]

Trying to make baseball like other sports is just dumb and this idea goes way too far. If they really want to improve the game, do 2 things. 1.Start with payroll and make all teams stay between minimum and maximum limits. 2.Add a red light on the scoreboard. When the home-plate ump calls a pitch wrong, the red light comes on and the call gets reversed. It's simple, fair, and requires him to still do his job. 

[chpettit19]

Their numbers with the younger generations must be horrible. They were asleep at the wheel for far too long despite all kinds of people on the outside jumping up and down screaming that the sport was dying and they needed to do things to attract a younger audience to keep up with the NFL and not get passed by the NBA. Too late now. NBA flew by them and the NFL is long gone in this race. So now they're left with embarrassing ideas like this.

This feels like a focus group testing. They're throwing the idea out and seeing what the reaction is. Testing the edges. Seeing how far they can go with each segment of the population to see how much they can change. And how quickly they can change it. 

I think this is a horrendous idea. But I'm no longer the target market. And I shouldn't be. I'm not the younger generation anymore. I'm a die hard who will still watch. They need to get younger fans watching. They needed to start doing it 20 years ago. But they really need to start doing it now. And if this is what it takes then they should do it. I just hope it isn't what it takes. 

[Trov]

This rule should have died in the meeting room and not even talked about it outside of the meeting room.  I get a need to increase young viewers and creating better tense moments in games can help that, but this is just too far.  I like most of the rule changes over the years, and hope the next is robo umps, not some rule out of slow pitch softball "fun" tournament. It reminds of some of those were you could tab a player with the super hitter and he/she would be 4 runs when they scored, and teams could play 1 mulligan a game negating the last play.  You would get 1 on both offense and defense.  Give a big HR, mulligan.  Have your best hitter not come through with bases loaded, mulligan. Maybe we should have guys run bases in reverse 1 inning, or make players hit opposite handed and field opposite handed for an inning too. 

[Trov]

5 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Their numbers with the younger generations must be horrible. They were asleep at the wheel for far too long despite all kinds of people on the outside jumping up and down screaming that the sport was dying and they needed to do things to attract a younger audience to keep up with the NFL and not get passed by the NBA. Too late now. NBA flew by them and the NFL is long gone in this race. So now they're left with embarrassing ideas like this.

This feels like a focus group testing. They're throwing the idea out and seeing what the reaction is. Testing the edges. Seeing how far they can go with each segment of the population to see how much they can change. And how quickly they can change it. 

I think this is a horrendous idea. But I'm no longer the target market. And I shouldn't be. I'm not the younger generation anymore. I'm a die hard who will still watch. They need to get younger fans watching. They needed to start doing it 20 years ago. But they really need to start doing it now. And if this is what it takes then they should do it. I just hope it isn't what it takes. 

What helped kill the game for the younger kids is the lack of personality in the game, through the unwritten rules.  Remember about a decade ago when there was a huge HR in playoffs and the bat toss by Jose Bautista?  It was a series a game 5 in best of 5 go ahead HR in 7th.  Texas carried that over to the next year still mad he tossed his bat the way he did.  

The lack of personality and excitement of the players, because if you do show some, the other team would get butt hurt and either fight you or throw at you later, makes fans turn away.  Kids were watching trash talking and funny post game pressers from NBA guys.  The action there is constant no sitting around 2 min between pitches sometimes, which rules changed that now but back in day between mound visits, step offs, throw overs, there were at bats nothing really happened for several min. 

I agree they may have lost out on some the young guys, but gimmick rules will not draw them back, creating a fun exciting game to watch that is not slow paced and having players that are fun to listen to will help.  

Look at Savana Bananas.  They draw huge crowds, like the globetrotters because they do fun things fans want to see.  I am not saying go that far, but allow some fun in the players without the other side getting mad would help.  

[DJL44]

This is blernsball, not baseball.

[tony&rodney]

Bud Selig promoted Sosa versus McGuire, where local broadcast were interrupted to bring us many of their at bats. Thus he managed to bring us the steroid era, which was conveniently then blamed on the players.

Manfred has toyed with the rules and the ball. The 2019 season was warped when it was divulged that the Manfredball ball gave MLB its own powerball. Recently, Manfred decided to use his superball only at one stadium, which it was said "makes it fair for both teams". Thus Aaron Judge, who doesn't need any help, now has a few new records. For now, that has ceased but the precedent for screwing around with the ball itself is a Manfred legacy.

• Introducing a pitch clock,
• Requiring relievers to either finish an inning or face at least three hitters
• Limiting the number of pitchers a team can carry,
• Putting a guy on 2nd base to start extra innings. 
• Restricting mound visits and pick-off attempts, and
• Embiggening the bases

MLB had a clock rule for both batters and pitchers for 100 years. MLB would not allow umpires to enforce it. Didn't anyone ever wonder why games from college to college to minors to amateur ball always has timely play? The umpires enforce the rule to pitch and bat at those levels, which is also why MLB players never had any problem whatsoever adjusting to the Manfredclock. 

MLB has toyed with both roster size and how players can be shuttled back and forth from the minors and majors. When MLB weakened their roster rules, you get the mess of pitching changes and larger numbers of pitchers.

The ultimate in Manfredball is the ghost runner. Hey, cool, we used that when we were kids. The players love it because the games end quicker. Managers love it the most because they don't need to make difficult decisions for using pitchers. Folks who don't want to watch any more get to go to bed. 

The larger bases make little difference. It's just another PR stunt. MLB did not make home plate larger.

I do believe that the Yankees, among a few other teams, needed to be corralled with the mound visits. The endless throws to first were once dealt with by the opposing pitcher, so this rule may be fair. The rules about purposely taking out a fielder or catcher were long overdue. These were also once taken care of by the pitcher.

I understand that Manfredball has fans. To me, Manfred, or more correctly his rules and influence, are part and parcel of why baseball is #4 amongst North American sports and soccer is still growing. It is almost as if the owners, by virtue of employing Manfred, are seeking the decline of their product. Proof that wealthy people don't necessarily know what they are doing or have much in the way of intelligence.

[tony&rodney]

14 minutes ago, Trov said:

back in day between mound visits, step offs, throw overs, there were at bats nothing really happened for several min. 

For fifty years plus the games averaged around two hours or less in length. The advent of TV added about 30 minutes to a game in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. It wasn't until  the 2000s that MLB reached three hours. The management of MLB has been incompetent in this century.

[Fire Dan Gladden]

I have been cautiously optimistic about the rule changes that have been implemented over the years, but there has been undeniable logic in each change made.  Reducing down-time, injury prevention, efforts to maintain the defacto balance of hitters and pitchers.  None of the changes made so far have really been a "foundational" change of the game.  Maybe the closest being the full-time DH, but even that was still done within the context of the game as we know it.

This idea would be a "foundational" change.  The ripple effects of this type change would be astounding.  Lineups would be impacted, pitcher usage would change, rosters would change to reflect the use of "one less needed" pinch-hitter.  You might as well introduce the re-entry rule they use in Little League.

That being said, this is probably one change idea of hundreds that are batted around at these types of meetings.  You want your leadership to be open to change and at least listen to all ideas.  Absurd ideas can lead to logical changes.  Nobody here should panic about anything until they start testing it at the MiLB level.  Then you know it is getting strong consideration. 

[Whitey333]

Dumb idea.  Manfred has already pretty much ruined baseball for most of older traditionalist.  It's almost unwatchable.  Baseball used to be fun, relaxing, and enjoyable.  Now it's become just a huge very boring video game.  Players "skills" have diminished greatly.  They have trouble throwing g to the wrong base, can't bunt, can't hit and run, can't adjust their at bat to advance runners.  The starting pitchers rarely go over 5 or 6 innings yet we are paying them more than ever.  This leads to higher ticket prices.  I've never been more discouraged about the state of major league baseball than I am now.  Rule changes like this will destroy what's left.

[saviking]

I asked for a gold watch, and they give me trinkets. 

[Fire Dan Gladden]

Just now, tony&rodney said:

For fifty years plus the games averaged around two hours or less in length. The advent of TV added about 30 minutes to a game in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. It wasn't until  the 2000s that MLB reached three hours. The management of MLB has been incompetent in this century.

Why does increased game length correlate to incompetent MLB management?  Technology and information are more to blame then anything right now for game length.

Other leagues are experiencing similar issues and are struggling to adjust.  Just watch an NBA game today compared to 10 years ago.  They look nothing alike.  The NFL is constantly tinkering with their rules.  

[Rhyno006]

"Their numbers with the younger generations must be horrible. They were asleep at the wheel for far too long despite all kinds of people on the outside jumping up and down screaming that the sport was dying and they needed to do things to attract a younger audience to keep up with the NFL and not get passed by the NBA. Too late now. NBA flew by them and the NFL is long gone in this race. So now they're left with embarrassing ideas like this."

So much this, chpettit19. And I'll add: if they want to make the game more fun/interesting, they sure as hell better start with making their product available to watch.

This time of year I can watch what feels like 8-10 NHL games on a given night on Hulu, but during the baseball season it's nearly crickets other than ESPN's Sunday night game and a random Yankees/BoSox matchup. Nobody will get excited about it if all they are watching is replays.

[Otaknam]

First of all, I don’t know any boomers who prefer long, slow paced baseball games. So I don’t know where that comment comes from. As a boomer myself, I have followed baseball for over sixty years and totally support the changes that have resulted in a faster paced game, especially the pitch clock, runner on second in extra innings, and non pitch intentional walk rule. But the golden at bat seems contrived compared to the other changes and would change the strategy, unlike the previous changes. 

[nicksaviking]

21 minutes ago, tony&rodney said:

For fifty years plus the games averaged around two hours or less in length. The advent of TV added about 30 minutes to a game in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. It wasn't until  the 2000s that MLB reached three hours. The management of MLB has been incompetent in this century.

Crossed three hours in the 2000's but game time really started to take a drag in the mid 1990's when ESPN pretty much ONLY showed Yankees/Red Sox games and every one of those players had to primp and preen with one foot in the batters box to make sure they got as much air time as possible. The rest of the league's players followed suit in the decade that followed.

[LambchoP]

Idiotic idea, will never happen. Bring in cheerleaders like they do in the Asian leagues. Watch the WBC games, they are doing something right with all the fans excitement without changing the game itself.

[Vanimal46]

1 hour ago, Trov said:

Look at Savana Bananas.  They draw huge crowds, like the globetrotters because they do fun things fans want to see.  I am not saying go that far, but allow some fun in the players without the other side getting mad would help. 

This proposed rule change literally comes from the Savannah Bananas. They do this in their league. The moment that MLB adopts a banana ball rule, the Savannah Bananas have won. 

[Parfigliano]

2 hours ago, Reptevia said:

His stupidest idea yet. 

I've no doubt he will come up with something even dumber.

[Jocko87]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

Their numbers with the younger generations must be horrible. They were asleep at the wheel for far too long despite all kinds of people on the outside jumping up and down screaming that the sport was dying and they needed to do things to attract a younger audience to keep up with the NFL and not get passed by the NBA. Too late now. NBA flew by them and the NFL is long gone in this race. So now they're left with embarrassing ideas like this.

This feels like a focus group testing. They're throwing the idea out and seeing what the reaction is. Testing the edges. Seeing how far they can go with each segment of the population to see how much they can change. And how quickly they can change it. 

I think this is a horrendous idea. But I'm no longer the target market. And I shouldn't be. I'm not the younger generation anymore. I'm a die hard who will still watch. They need to get younger fans watching. They needed to start doing it 20 years ago. But they really need to start doing it now. And if this is what it takes then they should do it. I just hope it isn't what it takes. 

But to tie back to the overly-sensational headline, the same thing that kills the numbers with the youngers is the same thing that will destroy the game-namely the TV situation.  

The youngers don’t consume on the TVs and we see that money going away already.  They will just watch the golden batter on the reels or Toks like they consume highlights today.  No long form attention means no long term advertising money.  More sound bites isn’t the fix if they can’t monetize it.

I’m also not to sure the NBA and NFL are good comps for baseball.  It’s just different and slow and steady is probably the better way.  The NFL and NBA are riding bubbles while MLB has already burst.  Don’t chase, don’t pervert the game when there are so many things to try first. I’d rather see the uniform look like NASCAR than this. 

[joefish]

Gravestones are rumbling from the dead as well as the protestations from the living. 

No effing way. 

Old Schooler : NO!